Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NE corridor carved out from Amtrak

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NE corridor carved out from Amtrak

    The Amtrak board has voted to create the Northeast Corridor as a separate division, setting the stage for a break-up of Amtrak and perhaps an end to long-haul intercity service outside of the corridor.

    Personally, I think this is a good start. Not sufficient, but necessary for a healthy sytem in the US. If the Northeast corridor is eventually given over to the states of the Northeast, the burden may be slightly bigger for them, but they will have more choice to manage the corridor as they see fit. Indeed, the states may choose to actually increase subsidies for better service. As things stand now, the NE corridor has to bargain with the rest of the country in order to get done what they want done. This seems to mean that nothing is done. For instance, Adam Smith has mentioned several times that the switching near New York City has needed an upgrade for quite a while.

    I support intercity rail in the Northeast corridor, but don't think it makes sense in most other places in the US, due to the low population densities of most of the US.

    The reporting on this action isn't clear whether the NE Corridor Division would include only the tracks and infrastructure, or would also include the rolling stock and service.

    Here's the NYT article...

    Train Board Backs Shift of Corridor

    By MATTHEW L. WALD
    Published: October 13, 2005

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 - The Amtrak board has approved an essential step in the Bush administration plan to break up the railroad, voting to carve out the Northeast Corridor, the tracks between Boston and Washington, as a separate division.

    The board, made up entirely of Mr. Bush's appointees, voted in a meeting on Sept. 22 to create a new subsidiary to own and manage the corridor, which includes nearly all the track that Amtrak owns.

    The vote was not announced. It was reported on Wednesday in the newsletter of the United Rail Passenger Alliance of Jacksonville, Fla., an organization that has been highly critical of Amtrak management.

    The plan, which would require action by Congress, is to transfer the corridor to a consortium including the federal government and the governments of the states in the region that would share the costs to maintain it.

    That would relieve Amtrak from spending billions of dollars to build and rebuild bridges, rails and electrical systems, but still let the company run its trains.

    The plan would also remove Amtrak from control of that sector, a condition that the railroad's senior executives say would doom high-speed long-distance service. Managers say they have to be able to give their trains priority over local traffic if they have any hope of keeping their schedules.

    A large majority of trains in the corridor are shorter-distance commuter trains operated by state agencies in metropolitan regions, although Amtrak trains accrue a majority of the miles traveled.

    The four-member board has shown ambivalence to some aspects of the administration's proposal.

    On April 21, the chairman, David M. Laney, testified before a Senate committee, "We have concluded for now that the complexities and risks associated with such a split outweigh any benefits."

    In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Mr. Laney denied that the vote to make the corridor a separate operating division was a precursor to separating it from Amtrak entirely.

    He said it was a way to make the costs clear, for the Northeast corridor, other corridors around the country and for long-distance and transcontinental trains. Such clarity is needed, Mr. Laney said, so Amtrak could ask states for subsidies for operating costs or capital costs, without the states' believing that their money was going to pay for operations in other regions.

    "The combination of federal and state support for intercity passenger rail is the only way it's going to be revitalized, in our judgment," Mr. Laney said. "But we've got to be able to deliver numbers to Congress, to the corridor states and the other states where we have operations."

    Amtrak supporters saw darker motives in the board's vote. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, one of four main sponsors of a bipartisan bill to shore up the railroad, said separating the corridor was intended to package it for a change in ownership.

    "The Bush administration wants to hold a fire sale on Amtrak and dump its best asset, the Northeast Corridor," Mr. Lautenberg said in a statement. "Selling the Northeast corridor is the first step in President Bush's plan to destroy Amtrak and intercity rail service in America."

    At the National Association of Railroad Passengers, which lobbies for more subsidies for Amtrak, the executive director, Ross B. Capon, said that separating the corridor into a distinct business entity was a step toward moving it out of Amtrak entirely, but that the move would also have a second effect, insulating the commuter operations in the Northeast from Amtrak troubles. That, Mr. Capon said, would give more leverage to the Transportation Department, which has been leading the charge to close Amtrak or break it up.

    "Their dream is an Amtrak crisis where the commuter trains are unaffected and, therefore, the political power behind the protest is that much smaller, and they can go ahead and do whatever they want with or too Amtrak," he said.

    A spokesman for the Transportation Department had no comment.

    Although the administration has proposed phasing out Amtrak unless major changes are enacted, the House has approved an appropriation of nearly $1.2 billion for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1, about the same level as the previous year. The Senate may take up the appropriations bill next week. The version passed in committee calls for $1.45 billion.
    Last edited by DanS; October 13, 2005, 00:44.
    I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

  • #2
    As flying becomes increasingly cumbersome and unpleasant, there will be select other places where intra-state rail, especially high-speed rail, would make sense. A high speed rail system that connected the cities of upstate New York (Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Utica-Troy/Albany) to NYC would be one. A Dallas-Houston-San Antonio-Austin loop would be another. A high-speed LA-SF connection might also be profitable, as might a Philidelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh route in PA.
    "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

    Comment


    • #3
      Perhaps so. I think a regional approach would allow intercity rail to flourish where it makes sense, rather than having to support all of the areas where it doesn't make sense.
      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

      Comment


      • #4
        I'd agree. Whatever else is or isn't wrong with Amtrak, their focus on an integrated, national rail system seems to be a big part of the problem. Regional is definitely the way to go, as is high speed.
        "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
          As flying becomes increasingly cumbersome and unpleasant, there will be select other places where intra-state rail, especially high-speed rail, would make sense. A high speed rail system that connected the cities of upstate New York (Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse-Utica-Troy/Albany) to NYC would be one. A Dallas-Houston-San Antonio-Austin loop would be another. A high-speed LA-SF connection might also be profitable, as might a Philidelphia-Harrisburg-Pittsburgh route in PA.
          Philadelphia-Baltimore-DC would be pretty useful, if it were high-speed. Current meandering trains suck.
          12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
          Stadtluft Macht Frei
          Killing it is the new killing it
          Ultima Ratio Regum

          Comment


          • #6
            The meandering trains are what we're left with, I'm afraid. I'd be interested in hearing from AS about how many tens of billions it would take to do bullet trains in the NE corridor.
            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

            Comment


            • #7
              There has never been a passenger rail privatization which has worked. Ask the UK what they think about their broken up rail network.
              Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

              Comment


              • #8
                Who said anything about privatization?
                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by DanS
                  Who said anything about privatization?
                  Indeed.
                  12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                  Stadtluft Macht Frei
                  Killing it is the new killing it
                  Ultima Ratio Regum

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Give it time, grasshopper. They'll break it up, it will be starved for funds (it now will only be in the interest of a few states to fund it so it won't get much money from Congress), declare it a failure since no one wants to ride old slow trains (yet Congress won't invest in faster bullet trains), then will come the claims that privitazation is the anwser.

                    That's been the Republican mantra for years. Set the public sector up for failure, then hand out massive contracts to poltically connected companies, then look the other way when the privatized sector does worse then the old public sector. This has been true with schools, with prisons, with military operations (think supply or food services) and it will be true with trains as well.
                    Last edited by Dinner; October 13, 2005, 01:41.
                    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      (Though you have to admit that his suspicion is well-founded where you're concerned, Dan)

                      12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                      Stadtluft Macht Frei
                      Killing it is the new killing it
                      Ultima Ratio Regum

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The only reason Amtrak even got the funds it did get is because they made sure every state had an interesting keeping the system going. Now that won't be true so fewer Congressmen will support it.

                        It won't work with less money since the system cannot be starved to success. We need a massive investment into bullet trains on a national level not a broken up train system. Ideally the rails would be publically owned, like roads & ports & airports are, while private train companies can operate on them.
                        Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Oerdin
                          It won't work with less money since the system cannot be starved to success. We need a massive investment into bullet trains on a national level not a broken up train system. Ideally the rails would be publically owned, like roads & ports & airports are, while private train companies can operate on them.
                          That would be ideal, and rails should be treated exactly like airports and highways in terms of their federal funding. But you still have more of a chance of viability if you start with rail lines that are actually going to have significant ridership, like the NE Corridor or the intrastate lines I proposed. I'm sorry I was born too late to ride the Twentieth Century Limited, but I was; and keeping a Chicago-New York rail line open out of what seems to be a nostalgia for the golden age of railroad is just foolish.
                          "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How much time is Chicago-NY on Amtrack?
                            urgh.NSFW

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Az
                              How much time is Chicago-NY on Amtrack?
                              16 hours, if its running on time, which it rarely is. It's about a 2-hour flight.
                              "I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X